Green, Constitution, and Libertarian Party all have over 200,000 members, and were created like 2 or 3 decades ago. The other parties listed also seem to have a history.

Justice Party was created last year, has barely any support, and is pretty much here so Rocky could run for president.

Just a question- how many people are registered justices?

__________________"The legitimacy of a state rests upon its claim to do justice"- ALAN RYAN

"In my view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."- ROSALIND FRANKLIN

I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community, and as long as I live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can- GEORGE BERNARD SHAW

The Green, Constitution, and Libertarian Party are listed, deservedly, as 3rd parties.

My question had to do with the JP not being listed as a minor 3rd party. I have a feeling, could be wrong, that we exceed the support that is given to the U.S. Pirate Party. If the Pirate Party is listed, I think the JP party should also be on the list of, at least, minor parties.

I suggest each of us track the number of supporters for the Justice Party at http://www.americanselect.org/candidates. While there, if you haven't already, register with the Americans Elect platform and then give your support to Rocky.

The goal is, from at least ten states, 5,000 supporters for Rocky within AE .

I would think an AE Rocky candidacy might even put JP up there with the better known 3rd parties.

BTW - I did ask the Admininstor of 3rdPartyPolitics.US for the qualifications.

I'll have to check again, but I don't think either the Greens or the libertarians are a minor party in VT, while the Vermont Progressive party is a Major party that beat the Dems in the last Gubernatorial election... The fact that the JP has a national candidate on the ballot in many states should qualify us.

__________________We came, we saw, we gathered signatures, we sued, we gathered signatures, we got Rocky on the Ballot in Vermont. That was the easy part, now we have to get this Justice Party Started!

Originally Posted by Ben EastwoodI'll have to check again, but I don't think either the Greens or the libertarians are a minor party in VT, while the Vermont Progressive party is a Major party that beat the Dems in the last Gubernatorial election...

I agree. The Vermont Progressives have, more or less, attained major party status. That's the good news. The bad news is that the Vermont Progressive Party only exists in one state, which is the second least populous state in the Union. However, I do think that we can all learn some important lessons from the Vermont Progressives, and that they can be an important part of the new political force this country needs.

The Progressives are a formal Major party in VT, and there are Progressive parties in other states, such as Oregon, where they have endorsed Rocky for President. Rocky and the Justice party have been actively working to build coalitions to build a national progressive network. Unlike the Greens, which have no party status in VT,are not on the ballot here, and are in a state of decline since Nader. The Libertarians have minor party status in VT, and a couple of other local groups, as well as AE, but the only parties which are growing in VT are the Progressives, and the Justice Party. __________________We came, we saw, we gathered signatures, we sued, we gathered signatures, we got Rocky on the Ballot in Vermont. That was the easy part, now we have to get this Justice Party Started!

I am worried when supposedly "reform" or "populist," or pro-democrcy parties fail to spell out what they mean by the term political party.

[ONE]
Will the Justice party run on a platform with many specific issues. Politicians of both of the establishment political parties have already made effective use of platforms using modern communication technologies. They are relatively cheap and have a good track record.

reference article:
Platforms: From the Voters Perspective
http://i-voter.tripod.com/Platforms.html
One elected politician cannot pass a law. One elected politician cannot even get a bill out of a committee! Why should a voter have any enthusiasm for candidates that cannot find another single candidate that agrees with them - on a single specific issue?

[TWO]
U.S. political parties have been extensively "reformed" (notice quotes) by law in the last 110 or 130 years. I suspect that a political party that educated the voters about some of these "reforms" would be trusted by the voters'

Originally Posted by pierre790Am curious what is going to happen with the Justice Party after the 2012 elections.

I would imagine that much depends on the nature of funding sources. IMO: One of the most common reasons major donors contribute to third-party candidates, particularly presidential candidates, is to draw support away from one or the other of the mainstream candidates. One example would be funding the Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Gary Johnson, to draw civil liberty voters away from the Republican candidate.

One rule of thumb I have; is this: Any third party that does not back massive reforms of our political system, to make it much, much, more responsive to the voter (ie. democratic) is likely primarily funded by donors that are motivated , to a greater or lesser extent, by the spoiler result.

I wonder if you, pierre790, favor our current political system?

Hint for someone that actually is aware that voters, as voters, also have interests.

U.S. Parties don't necessarily need big money to win! Voters tend to be interested in political platforms. Voters support platforms because one politician can't pass a law! One elected politician cannot even get a bill out of a committee! Why should a voter have any enthusiasm for candidates that cannot find another single candidate that agrees with them - on a single specific issue? Voters do not like to waste their votes!

U.S. Parties don't necessarily need big money to win! Voters tend to be interested in political platforms. Voters support platforms because one politician can't pass a law! One elected politician cannot even get a bill out of a committee! Why should a voter have any enthusiasm for candidates that cannot find another single candidate that agrees with them - on a single specific issue? Voters do not like to waste their votes!

This is precisely one of the points I've also been making, here and in several other forums on the web. I don't know if I agree with the part that says U.S. Parties don't need big money to win -- take a look at how much the two duopoly parties spent just on this past presidential election. But I totally agree that a caucus of one will not solve any problems.

This is why I propose that any strategy for winning MUST include a sizable number of candidates for a specific race (such as the US Senate or US House), assuming that some will not win. Congressional races are not "cheap" by any means, though far less expensive than the presidential races. Thus, if we cannot get more than, say, a dozen or so solid congressional candidates around the country for 2014, we probably shouldn't bother (I'm NOT kidding about this). Lone wolves usually don't accomplish much by themselves, and caucusing with the enemy is not exactly my idea of a reward for backing the candidate with my hard work.

If we did get, say, half of those candidates into Congress, our work would have been worth the effort, and our candidates then have a solid caucus to start with. They might still not get anything out of committee, but at least they will have a resonance in the Chamber from multiple voices backing each other. Once that is established, adding more to our pack should be a lighter task in, say, 2016. It might even make running a presidential candidate more worthwhile.

That is to say, if we are here to win, then let's do that. If all we want to do is "prove a point," so to speak, that a determined group of individuals can get one person elected here or there, then I'm checking out right now; that "point to prove" does not need to be done because that's been done before. The result, in at least two cases I can think of, is that our hard work was betrayed by our elected candidate jumping to the Dems (for the purpose of being able to caucus). If that's the result we wanted, then why not just let the Dems run that person in the first place. I'm not going to waste my time on one more botched-from-the-get-go campaign because googly-eyed idealism trumped thoroughly-determined strategy.

I'm very interested in seeing this, or perhaps some other party, succeed. But I will continue to be insistent about doing things right. Strategy must be clearly laid out, with fallback plans and all the other accoutrements necessary to optimize chances for success. From where I stand, strategy mostly includes what happens AFTER the election is over and our party has assumed whatever power it has won. My experience is that this is the part where smaller parties continually fail.

__________________Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.

No, Thanks for your well thought input. We very much need a long term strategy. The right, the Kochs, the Republicans write a script decades in advance. The left is continually reactionary. This needs fixed. We ran our presidential campaign and drew in enough people to build the foundation of a party that will hopefully begin writing a better plan for this country than what has been offered so far. We need to get to work finding lots of candidates now.

Thank you Joshua. I suggest that we do need to find lots of candidates, but preferably ones we can trust and have solid political (as opposed to personal) credentials. Let's run credible politicians for office, ones who do what they say they will do, what they say they will do being what our party platform directs; accountability that builds solid trust within the party and with the voters.__________________Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.

" I don't know if I agree with the part that says U.S. Parties don't need big money to win -- "

My point was only true if media advertizing was over say 50% of normal campaign costs. Political platforms are much more influential with voters than TV ads. They can also be distributed quite cheaply. I don't claim to have any documented evidence of the percentages of campaign money used to purchase the advertize funded media. I suspect, just the existence of the Internet, has reduced the mainstream media's share of the take. Email or twittered links to an official web page are cheap.

I apologize if I sounded unduly critical, and I actually agree with your point about the Internet providing some cheaper means of outreach and education. And I think it is true that the more recent presidential campaigns (as well as innumerable local and state ones as well) have utilized this cheaper alternative very productively, particularly with the younger, e-crowd.

I think my cynicism may derive from the fact that, for example, the recent POTUS campaigns still managed to rack up half a billion dollars or so. It could be this money is being diverted to other resources than just print and TV (paid) media. But that begs an obvious question, one often answered with the snap reply which insinuates money bargaining or worse. But since the FEC requires accounting for any and all expenses related to elections, I am hard pressed to believe that the vast majority of that money is being spent that way.

At any rate, I did not mean any offense.__________________Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.

Insert Photos

Web address (URL)

Image URL

If your URL is correct, you'll see an image preview here. Large images may take a few minutes to appear.
Remember: Using others' images on the web without their permission may be bad manners, or worse, copyright infringement.